Socio-Economic Wellbeing and Human Rights-Related Experiences of People with Disabilities in Covid-19 Times in South Africa
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Socio-Economic Wellbeing and Human Rights-Related
Experiences of People with Disabilities in Covid-19
Times in South Africa
Final report
26 January 2022
Project Team:
Dr Tim Hart Co-Principal Investigator (Co PI) & Chief Research Specialist,
Development, Capable and Ethical State research division
(DCES), Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC)
Dr Mary Wickenden Principal Investigator (PI) & Research Fellow, Institute of
Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex
Dr Stephen Thompson Co-Principal Investigator (Co PI) & Research Fellow, IDS,
University of Sussex
Dr Yul Derek Davids Co-Principal Investigator (Co PI) & Research Director, DCES,
HSRC
Adv. Gary Pienaar Senior Research Manager, DCES, HSRC
Dr Mercy Ngungu Data Manager, DCES, HSRC
Ms Yamkela Majikijela PhD Research Intern, DCES, HSRC
Mr Tinashe Rubaba Projects and Proposals Development Manager, National
Council of and for Persons with Disabilities in South Africa
(NCPD)
Ms Nthabiseng Molongoana Research & Development Manager, NCPD
Prof Narnia Bohler-Muller Divisional Executive, DCES, HSRC
Ms Therina Wentzel-du Toit National Director, NCPD
Mr Andre Kalis Specialist: Advocacy, Policy and Children’s Matters, NCPD
Ms Lebogang Boya Research and Development Senior Administrator, NCPD
Ms Masentle Mofokeng Research Assistant, NCPDTable of contents
List of figures .............................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5
Purpose and methodology ......................................................................................................... 7
Background ............................................................................................................................ 7
Survey methodology .............................................................................................................. 8
Response profile .................................................................................................................... 8
Geographic spread of sample ................................................................................................ 8
Methodological limitations .................................................................................................... 9
Demographics of the sample ................................................................................................... 11
Persons with disability ......................................................................................................... 11
Gender distribution .............................................................................................................. 11
Race ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Education ............................................................................................................................. 12
Marital status ....................................................................................................................... 13
Disability in terms of the WG-SS .......................................................................................... 14
Economic circumstances – pre- and during the pandemic ..................................................... 16
Average monthly income ..................................................................................................... 18
Psychosocial experiences ......................................................................................................... 22
Emotional experiences during the pandemic and means of coping ................................... 22
Experiences with law enforcement ..................................................................................... 24
Worst and best thing about lockdown ................................................................................ 28
Service challenges .................................................................................................................... 30
Accessibility to care services .................................................................................................... 34
General challenges exacerbated by COVID-19 .................................................................... 34
Perceptions of the state’s handling of the pandemic .............................................................. 36
Communication and information accessibility .................................................................... 36
Challenges when wearing a facemask ................................................................................. 39
Perceptions of government’s handling of the pandemic .................................................... 40
Vaccine demand ....................................................................................................................... 43
Future expectations ................................................................................................................. 47
Discussion................................................................................................................................. 50
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 54
References ............................................................................................................................... 55
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. 57
2List of figures1
Figure 1: Provincial distribution of realised sample (%) (N=1857) ............................................ 9
Figure 2: Survey respondents considering themselves to be persons with disabilities (%)
(N=1857) .................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3: Respondents’ identification in terms of gender and age (%) (N=1857) ................... 12
Figure 4: Share of respondents by racial categorisation (%) (N=1857) ................................... 12
Figure 5: Respondent’s educational levels (%) (N=1857) ........................................................ 13
Figure 6: Marital status of respondents (%) (N=1857) ............................................................ 13
Figure 7: Self-reported functional difficulty in six WG-SS domains (%) (N=1857) .................. 14
Figure 8: How disabling respondents experienced their difficulty to be (%) (N=1857) .......... 15
Figure 9: Type of housing of respondents (%) (N=1857) ......................................................... 16
Figure 10: Receipt of a social grant from the government (%) (N=1857) ............................... 17
Figure 11: Type of social grant received (%) (N=1857) ............................................................ 17
Figure 12: Respondents gross monthly average earnings (%) (N=1857) ................................. 18
Figure 13: Concern about financial situation pre- and during lockdown (%) (N=1857) .......... 19
Figure 14: Respondents’ work status at lockdown on 27 March 2020 (%) (N=1857) ............. 19
Figure 15: Change in employment circumstances because of the pandemic (%) (N=1857) ... 20
Figure 16: Emotional experiences of respondents under lockdown (MR) (%) (N=1857) ........ 22
Figure 17: Whether respondents addressed any of the negative emotions they experienced
during the pandemic (%) (N=1857).......................................................................................... 23
Figure 18: Measures undertaken by respondents to address negative emotions experienced
during the pandemic (%) (N=1857).......................................................................................... 24
Figure 19: Likelihood of personal social situation worsening (%) (N=1857) ........................... 24
Figure 20: Whether respondents were questioned by law enforcement agents about why
they were outside of their homes (%) (N=1857) ..................................................................... 25
Figure 21: Direct harassment from law enforcement agents and others (MR) (%) (N=1857) 26
Figure 22: Was support offered by law enforcement agents during the pandemic (%)
(N=1857) .................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 23: Types of support provided by law enforcement agents (% of N = 668) ................. 28
Figure 24: Worst single thing about lockdown (%) (N=1857) .................................................. 28
Figure 25: Best single aspect of lockdown (%) (N=1857) ......................................................... 29
Figure 26: Events experienced during lockdown not normally experienced prior to the
pandemic (MR) (%) (N=1857) .................................................................................................. 31
Figure 27: Awareness of government special forms of assistance (%) (N=1857) ................... 31
Figure 28: Types of disability-related services accessed (%) (N=1857) ................................... 33
Figure 29: Requirement for a caregiver or somebody to support them in daily activities (%)
(N=1857) .................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 30: Interruption of caregiver support due to COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown
(%) (N=1112) ............................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 31: How long was the interruption in accessing care (%) (N=850) ............................... 35
Figure 32: Ease of access to information in the context of participant’ disability (%) (N=1857)
.................................................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 33: Challenges in accessing information (MR) (%) (N=1857) ....................................... 37
1All figures in this report were created by the authors. Figure 1 was created using GeoNames.
Figures 2-48 were created using Microsoft Office programmes.
3Figure 34: Main sources of information about the Coronavirus pandemic and the measures
taken (MR) (%) (N=1857) ......................................................................................................... 38
Figure 35: Main platforms for receiving information about the COVID-19 pandemic and the
measures taken (MR) (%) (N=1857) ......................................................................................... 38
Figure 36: Knowledge about COVID-19 (%) (N=1857) ............................................................. 39
Figure 37: Experience of challenges when wearing a face mask (%) (N=1857) ...................... 40
Figure 38: Perceptions about different agencies performance in accommodating the needs
and rights of persons with disabilities in their responses to the pandemic (%) (N=1857)...... 40
Figure 39: Perceptions about the appropriateness of the restrictions imposed during
lockdown levels between March 2020 and end of June 2021 (%) (N=1857) .......................... 41
Figure 40: Extent of agreement that government had taken the circumstances and needs of
persons with disabilities into account in its response to the pandemic (%) (N=1857) ........... 42
Figure 41: Personal knowledge of anyone who currently has coronavirus (MR) (%) (N=1857)
.................................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 42: Personal knowledge of anyone currently with COVID-19 in relation to self-
declared wealth status (MR) (%) (N=1857).............................................................................. 44
Figure 43: Perceived likelihood of being infected with Coronavirus in the next few months
(%) (N=1857) ............................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 44: Perceived likelihood of being infected with Coronavirus in the next few months,
by gender (%) (N=1857) ........................................................................................................... 45
Figure 45: Likelihood of taking a Covid-19 vaccine if it was available (%) (N=1857) ............... 46
Figure 46: Awareness of and previous consultation around the disaster framework for
persons with disabilities (%) (N=1857) .................................................................................... 47
Figure 47: Respondents views on possible government actions to enhance the disaster
framework for persons with disabilities (%) (N=1857) ............................................................ 48
Figure 48: Interventions recommended to be supported by Government (MR) (%) (N=1857)
.................................................................................................................................................. 49
4Introduction
Following the outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) toward the end of 2019, the South
African government declared a National State of Disaster on 15 March 2020 and introduced
Level 5 lockdown from 27 March 2020. While necessary as a measure to contain the spread
of COVID-19, the introduction of stringent Level 5 lockdown measures negatively impacted
all South Africans and the economy. Almost overnight, jobs were shed, movement within and
between provinces was curtailed, and most people had to remain at home unless they were
shopping for essential groceries and food. Prioritised healthcare workers could continue to
work under strict conditions. Non-essential businesses were temporarily closed. The South
African Police Services (SAPS) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) were
deployed to assist with the implementation of the lockdown procedures.
On 1 May 2020 the country moved to lockdown Level 4 and a phased relaxation was
introduced. By 1 June 2020 the country had moved to Level 3 and the state had introduced
some mitigation measures, including the distribution of food parcels, the social relief of
distress grant (SRD), and had temporarily increased some social grants. Non-essential
businesses were allowed to reopen, and learners and students began returning to schools and
higher education institutions. On 23 June 2020 South Africa started its first COVID-19 vaccine
trial.
While these events were unfolding in the early months of the pandemic, the disability sector
became increasingly aware of challenges facing persons with disabilities in South Africa due
to the control and mitigation measures implemented during Level 5 and 4 lockdown phases.
Some press reports indicated increased difficulty in accessing transport, essential services,
care services, food, and other basic needs. There were also reports regarding difficulty in
accessing the mitigation measures such as food parcels and the SRD. Some South African
disability scholars began conducting research with persons with disabilities and with Disability
Support Organisations (DSOs) / Organisations for People with Disabilities (OPDs). Much of this
work focused on specific types of disabilities or on general challenges faced by OPDs and
persons with disabilities (McKinney, McKinney and Swartz, 2020; 2021).
Persons with disabilities are one of the largest minority groups in society, and yet one of the
most marginalised. An estimated 15% of the world’s population are persons with disabilities,
80% of whom live in developing countries (IASC, 2019; United Nations, 2020). In South Africa
the official figures for persons with disabilities vary to a great extent, from 7.5% in 2011 (Stats
SA, 2014) to 7.7% in 2016 (Stats SA, 2016) and 6.6% in 2019 (Stats SA, 2020). In 2016 the
Department of Social Development (DSD) and Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) noted that at
least 12% of the population over five years of age could have activity-limiting impairments of
various degrees (DSD, 2016a). The National Department of Health put this figure at around
20% in 2016 (NDOH, 2019). This diversity exists despite these national surveys using the
5preferred Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS) questions (WG, n.d.). This now widely used
tool collects data about people’s self-reported type and severity of functional difficulty, as a
proxy for disability but does not ask about diagnosis of impairment or health conditions.
During the early months of the global pandemic the international Disability Rights Monitor
group survey illustrated the circumstances of persons with disabilities around the world
(Brennan, Allen, Arnold et al. 2020). Gradually literature on the situation for persons with
disabilities in sub-Saharan Africa started to emerge (Ek and Larsen, 2021). As members of an
informal network looking at issues affecting this group, some of the authors of this report
realised that much of the research done was not specifically focusing on their perceptions
during the pandemic and that it was not using the WG-SS questions. Having noticed a gap in
the type of data being collected by other scholars and the media, this small informal network
identified a need for a survey that would look at both experiences and perceptions of persons
with disabilities focussing on lived experiences of socioeconomic impacts and access to
human rights during the pandemic in South Africa.
At the time the University of Johannesburg (UJ) and the Human Sciences Research Council
(HSRC) were collaborating on a similar exercise across the broad South African population,
the UJ-HSRC COVID-19 Democracy Survey. The University of Cape Town (UCT)-based National
Income Dynamics Survey group introduced the National Income Dynamics Study Coronavirus
Rapid Mobile Survey (NIDS-CRAM) to consider the impacts of COVID-19 on South Africa. Both
these studies were on-line digital and longitudinal surveys. Given the seemingly limited
opportunities for funding a panel study, the HSRC and the National Council of and for Persons
with Disabilities (NCPD) formed a partnership with disability scholars at the Institute for
Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex (UK). Together the organisations compiled a
proposal and submitted this to the UK Research and Innovation Newton Fund COVID-19 Agile
Response call for proposals in July 2020. This was approved and the study started in
November 2020. Research ethics approval was obtained from the IDS and from the HSRC’s
Research Ethics Committee (Protocol No REC 1/11/20 9 December 2020).
This report summarises some of the key findings of the study, which was conducted on-line
using Google Forms from the 1 July to 31 August 2021. All percentages displayed are rounded
to the nearest percent and this may affect what is displayed in charts. While we cite some
literature in this report a separate literature review was written by the team and was used to
guide the research and focus the questions (Wickenden et al. 2021).
6Purpose and methodology
Background
Based on media and research reports our interest is on the impact of COVID-19 and mitigation
measures on persons with disabilities in South Africa and how this might impact on their rights
and their wellbeing. Reports during initial four months of lockdown indicated that with people
with disabilities were generally being overlooked by disaster relief measures and almost
entirely ignored by pandemic directives, which focused more on controlling the spread of the
Coronavirus rather than paying attention to the adverse effects they might cause for specific
groups (literature review). Furthermore, discussions with various state officials and OPDs
indicated that persons with disabilities were overlooked by the National Disaster
Management Framework in various ways, including:
• Specific needs and circumstances ignored
• Diversity within the sub-population of persons with disabilities was not considered
• The Disaster Management Act (DMA) regulations more concerned with reducing
infection (overlooked the need to mitigate various indirect effects of the pandemic
and promulgated regulations)
It was also evident from reports that few specific state interventions included the need to
consider persons with disabilities and thereby raising questions about the nature and type of
support, who was reached, and the impact of COVID-19 control or mitigation regulations. To
get some understanding of the circumstances of persons with disabilities the survey asked
broad questions to explore the socioeconomic, and human rights related perceptions and
experiences of South African residents with disabilities during the pandemic.
The study set out to hear the voice, attitudes, needs and circumstances of respondents who
were individuals who were people with disabilities not organisations in the sector. Other
studies have focused on these organisations. While the focus was not on children we
encouraged parents, guardians and carers to assist provide consent and assist those under 18
should they wish to do participate. We also asked caregivers and family to assist those who
found it challenging to complete the questionnaire online themselves.
After various delays the survey was open for responses online from 1 July to 31 August 2021.
After the first round of piloting, we included the WG-SS questions. The final survey instrument
consisted of 119 items. We opted for a self-definition of disability or impairment rather than
a clinical diagnosis thus aligning with the WG-SS. As the vaccine debate was raging at the time
and because various members of the research team were being requested to lobby for
persons with disabilities, irrespective of age, to be prioritised to get the vaccine we included
some questions related to the vaccine and the roll out. The final survey instrument comprised
mainly quantitative questions, including some multiple response questions and options
7where only one response was required. We included some free text qualitative questions
where respondents could explain, clarify or provide a comment or suggestion.
Survey methodology
Due to COVID-19 and the lockdown regulations and to protect researchers and respondents
from possible infection the survey was administered online. It was thus compliant with
COVID-19 regulations in South Africa. We also had to comply with the Protection of Private
Information Act of 2013, so we could not assemble a database of possible participants and
contact them directly. Instead, we worked through different civil society, government and
private organisations and enterprises and requested them to distribute the survey link on our
behalf to their contacts. Those who received the link could then decide whether to respond
to the survey and give their consent for their information to be used. Thus, the research team
had no direct contact with the respondents or potential respondents outside of their own
personal networks.
Response profile
The intention was to run the survey online for one month in July and to get response from
between 3000 and 4000 persons with disabilities. However, due to an initial low response
rate and the unrest in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal and other parts of South Africa, the survey
was kept open until 31 August. The final number of valid cases (those who gave consent and
agreed to participate in the study) was 1857. Those over 18 years accounted for 94.3% of the
sample and 96% completed the survey without any assistance. Of the sample 87% self-
defined themselves as a person with a disability.
Geographic spread of sample
Figure 1 indicates that most of the respondents came from Gauteng Province (64%), with 7%
from the Western Cape and 6% from Limpopo. The high concentration of respondents in
Gauteng is possibly attributable to the density of the population in this smallest province but
more likely to the fact that the HSRC and the NCPD have a significant presence in this province
and had more control over the management of the survey-link distribution process. The more
rural provinces, such as the Northern Cape and the North West, may well have had challenges
regarding Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) infrastructure. For example, it
is often difficult to connect with colleagues in the Northern Cape because the mobile
connections are weak except for in the two main towns of Kimberley and Upington. Similarly,
the increase in load shedding during this period may also have frustrated respondents in
particular areas.
8Limpopo
6
Mpumalanga
North-West
64 3
2
Free State
KwaZulu-Natal
5 4
Northern Cape
4
Eastern Cape
4
Western Cape
7
Powered by Bing
© GeoNames, Microsoft, TomTom
Figure 1: Provincial distribution of realised sample (%) (N=1857)
Methodological limitations
It must be noted that the findings presented relate only to the sample and is not necessarily
representative of the whole population of persons with disabilities. While some cautious
extrapolation can be done, the main challenge is, as noted above, that official figures of
persons with disabilities vary from 7% to 20% of the South African population, indicating that
many are undocumented and unrecorded. Hopefully the next Census will shed clearer light
on the proportion of persons with disabilities in South Africa. We used a purposive voluntary
sampling approach as opposed to a random or stratified sampling approach. We also used
self-definition of disability as a criterion for opting to participate in the survey. In the survey
covering letter and guide we included the following paragraph about disability:
Definitions of disability vary, and it is up to each person to decide whether they
identify as a person with disabilities or not. The survey includes some questions about
the type and level of difficulty you have, and it is up to you to decide about this. The
study is not linked to any official information about your or your impairment or how
disabling this is.
The reason for this is that there are many clinical definitions of disability used by different
departments and organisations. Our decision to opt for self-definition aligns with the purpose
of the WG-SS. It is important to note that the WG-SS methodology does not aim to capture
prevalence of diagnosed impairments but people’s perceptions of difficulty in functioning. It
also notes that people have different understandings of the meaning of disability. So, the
figures derived from the survey findings do not necessarily map onto other types of datasets
which may report prevalence of types of impairments or health conditions. Furthermore,
9some people may have lived for a long time with an impairment and become accustomed to
it and therefore not consider it functionally challenging. So, while they may report that they
are a person with at least one impairment they might not see this as being functionally
challenging or socially or environmentally disabling.
As the methodology required online connectivity, participants who are literate may have
been more likely to participate and this may explain why the education of participants is
generally higher than that of the general South African population. The online nature of the
methodology and the type of people who participated may have had an influence on the
findings overall. For example, it would be expected that a sample with higher education levels
than the general population may find accessing information about COVID-19 easier than a
less-educated cohort. The format of this survey offered only limited space to gain knowledge
about the contextual living conditions of respondents. Further qualitative inquiry may address
this knowledge gap.
The survey instrument was long, with 119 items that required responses in most cases, and
took about 35 to 45 minutes to complete. Thus, some fatigue could have been experienced
by respondents, over which we had no control.
Self-administered surveys online or using other forms of distribution such as postal surveys
are subject to limitations. Despite extensive piloting, we are uncertain if each item was clearly
understood, and are unable to identify and explore possible misunderstandings or explore
response inconsistencies that arise.
It must be noted that a survey is a snapshot intime, and this can lead to biases in responses
to the survey. Common biases include: recall limitations; the predominance of current issues
and concerns; and even that earlier concerns may have been resolved by the time of the
survey or are overshadowed by more recent events. Media messages at the time can also
influence responses. When respondents are assisted to complete the questionnaire,
moreover, there can be some bias on the part of the person assisting them, which might result
in inaccurate representation of their intended responses. However, this is unlikely to be a
major cause for concern in this survey as only 4% (N=74) of the 1857 respondents were
assisted.
10Demographics of the sample
Persons with disability
The majority of the sample, 87%, identified themselves to be persons with disabilities.
13%
87%
Yes No
Figure 2: Survey respondents considering themselves to be persons with disabilities (%)
(N=1857)
Gender distribution
In terms of gender just under 64% were male, 36% female, and less than 1% “other”. Almost
83% of the males considered themselves to be a person with a disability, as did 95% of the
females. Figure 3 provides a disaggregation by identified gender and age range. The majority
of female respondents (69%) came from the 18–34-year age group while the majority of male
respondents (55%) were in the 35–64-year age group. While the percentage of those who
identified themselves as “other” was extremely small, 82% came from the 18–34-year cohort.
Just over half (52%) of the sample came from the 18–34-year cohort and 44% came from the
35–64-year cohort. Just under 2% were over 65 years of age and 2% were younger than 18.
Overall, most of the respondents fall into the ranges of 18-34 years and 35-64 years.
11Other 0% 82% 18% 0% 0%
3% 69% 26% 1% 0%
2% 52% 44% 1.9% 0.1%
.
1% 43% 55% 1% 0%
Under 18 Yrs. 18 - 34 Yrs. 35 – 64 Yrs. 65 + Yrs. Prefer not to say
Figure 3: Respondents’ identification in terms of gender and age (%) (N=1857)
Race
In Figure 4 shows that unsurprisingly, most of the respondents were Black African (83%) which
mirrors the population distribution in South Africa. What is surprising is the very low share of
respondents from the Coloured and Asian population groups and from the White group,
although the latter is much larger than the former two racial categorisations.
83%
10%
5%
2%
Black African Coloured Indian or Asian White
Figure 4: Share of respondents by racial categorisation (%) (N=1857)
Education
Interestingly, Figure 5 indicates that 40% of the respondents had a Grade 12 Certificate with
a further 21% having a higher educational qualification. Of concern is that 26% had limited
12primary and secondary school education and 12% had no formal schooling. The sample is
more educated than the population of people with disabilities in South Africa (among whom
educational levels are generally lower, with those having Grade 12 and higher being around
18%, according to DSD (2016a&b) and Stats SA (2019)).
40%
22%
16%
12%
4% 5%
No formal Primary schooling Some secondary Completed matric Higher education Vocational
schooling schooling (degree or training (such as
diploma) learning a trade
or career related
technical training
Figure 5: Respondent’s educational levels (%) (N=1857)
Marital status
Three-fifths (61%) of respondents had never been married, while 2% were divorced, 2% were
separated and 1% were either widows or widowers. Just under a third (31%) reported being
married and 4% reported cohabiting or being in common law relationships.
61%
31%
2% 2% 4%
1%
Single (never Married Widow/Widower Divorced Separated Cohabiting
married)
Figure 6: Marital status of respondents (%) (N=1857)
13Disability in terms of the WG-SS
Using the WG-SS questions, respondents had to indicate their level of difficulty in all six
functional domains. It must be noted that while the WG-SS questions were asked, we used
self-identification of persons with disabilities rather than one of the recommended cut-off
points for WG-SS categorisation such as “a lot of difficulty” in our sampling approach. The
reality is that individual people in different circumstances may vary in how they self-identify
with disability. Furthermore, some may have “some difficulty” or even “no difficulty” most of
the time but find certain environments disabling. Figure 7 represents the combined results
from the WG-SS questions.
More than 29% of respondents reported “some difficulty”, a “lot of difficulty” or “cannot do”
in one of the six domains. Thirty-four percent of respondents reported having some visual
challenges and those with hearing challenges amounted to 29%. Forty-seven percent had
challenges with mobility and 36% had challenges with self-care. Over 36% had challenges with
concentrating and remembering and around 30% had challenges with communication when
using their home language.
2% 1% 8% 4%
4% 3% 5% 4%
5%
9%
25% 25%
28% 31% 27%
30%
67% 71% 71%
64% 65%
54%
Seeing/vision Hearing Mobility (walking Remembering or Self-care (unable) Commnucation
or climbing) concentration
No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do
Figure 7: Self-reported functional difficulty in six WG-SS domains (%) (N=1857)
In a follow-up question to the WG-SS to determine if we had missed out types of difficulty or
alternative descriptions of impairment, respondents reported upper body limitations, hand
and arm limitations, organ problems, difficulty sitting, difficulty getting out of chairs, pain,
anxiety / depression, tiredness, complex epilepsy, Albinism and Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This illustrates the ways in which people conceptualise their
14difficulty and perhaps suggests that the WG-SS questions probably need to be administered
in person and that the recently developed WG-SS Enhanced set might elicit more accurate or
detailed responses about people’s needs for support.
Asked about how disabling respondents experienced their difficulty to be (Figure 8), almost
half of the respondents said it was very disabling (46%) while almost a third (30%) considered
it somewhat disabling. Of the remaining respondents 10% were uncertain, 9% did not really
find their impairment to be very disabling, 2% were clear that their experience was “definitely
not disabling”, and 3% did not know. This shows how complex and variable concepts and
language around impairment and disability are and how diverse individual people’s usage of
the terms is.
46%
30%
10% 9%
2% 3%
Very disabling Somewhat Uncertain Not really Definitely not Dont know
disabling disabling disabling
Figure 8: How disabling respondents experienced their difficulty to be (%) (N=1857)
15Economic circumstances – pre- and during the pandemic
In line with the socioeconomic focus of the survey, it aimed to gauge individuals’ perceptions
of their economic circumstances and how these compared pre- and during the pandemic.
Questions were asked relating to economic circumstances including: housing, access to water
and sanitation, income, reliance on grants, changes in employment, concerns about the
economic outlook during the pandemic, and future perceptions of economic circumstances.
Figure 9 shows that 43% were living in a township or RDP housing while 20% lived in a
backyard room or shack and 11% lived in informal settlements. Only 5% reported living in
rural areas, so most of the respondents are urban based. Around 0.5% live in a place of safety
for the homeless or the elderly and 1.5% reside in state or private institutions for persons
with disabilities. Only 16% of the respondents are living in suburban, homes, cottages,
apartments or townhouses.
Other 1%
House in a rural area (including former homeland or reserve) 5%
State and non-state institution such as a hospital, old age home, homeless shelter,
place of stafety 0.4%
Non-state institution for persons with disabilities 1%
State institution for persons with disabilities 0.5%
Hostel or student residence 1.2%
Flat, apartment or townhouse 7%
Suburban house (including a cottage) 9%
In an informal settlement without a yard 2%
In an informal settlement with a yard 9%
Backyard shack or backyard room in a township 20%
Township or RDP house 43%
Figure 9: Type of housing of respondents (%) (N=1857)
Interestingly, 64% of respondents reported receiving a state social grant as indicated in Figure
10. While 25% were not getting any state assistance, 8% were in the process of applying for a
state social grant. Around 3% felt that they were eligible for a disability grant but had been
unsuccessful in getting one.
1664%
25%
8%
3%
Yes No Busy applying for a social Believe I am eligible for a
grant disability grant but
unsuccessful in getting one
Figure 10: Receipt of a social grant from the government (%) (N=1857)
Exploring the type of grants received, we noted an interesting trend. Figure 11 shows that
one third (33%) were getting the SRD, which is a temporary COVID-19 relief measure of
R350/month and just under one third (31%) received a disability grant. Almost a fifth (19%)
are not eligible for any social grant. While 10% receive an old age pension, 5% receive grants
relating to children: Child Support Grant (3%); Foster Child Grant (1%) the Care Dependency
Grant for children with disabilities (1%). A concern is that 33% of respondents are likely to
lose their current grant, the SRD, over time as this is a temporary relief measure.
Social relief of distress grant introduced in May 2020 33%
Disability grant 31%
Not applicable as I am not eligible for any social
19%
grants
State old age pension 10%
Child support grant 3%
I think I am eligible because of my disability and have
tried but the state wont give me a grant 2%
Care dependency grant 1%
Foster child grant 1%
Figure 11: Type of social grant received (%) (N=1857)
17Average monthly income
Figure 12 indicates that at the time of the survey 26% of the respondents earn less than
R1 227.00 per month and while 14% earn between R1 228.00 and R2 500.00 per month, 33%
earn between R2 501.00 and R5 000.00 per month. This means that 73% earn less than
R5000.00 per month or R60 000 per annum. Approximately 10% earn between R10 001.00
and more than R40 000.00 per month. Income is derived from multiple sources and not only
formal sector salaries and wages; thus, no reliable official figures exist for the average
monthly take home earnings after tax. However, BankservAfrica (2021: 8) put the figure for
salaries and wages after tax at R 15,125 in August 2021. Stats SA’s Quarterly employment
statistics (2021) put the figure, before deductions, at R24,051. Figure 12 shows that at least
82% of respondents have income or earnings after deductions below R10,001 per month –
well below the proposed current monthly averages.
33%
13% 13% 14%
9%
6% 5%
3% 3%
1%
Less than R Between Between Between Between Between Between More than Dont know Prefer not to
561 per R562 and R1,228 and R2,501 and R5,001 and R10,001 and R20,001 and R40,000 say
month R1,227 per R2,500 R5,000 R10,000 R20,000 R40,000
month
Figure 12: Respondents gross monthly average earnings (%) (N=1857)
Unsurprisingly an overwhelming 93% of respondents were concerned about their current
financial situation. When asked if their concerns about their financial circumstances were
different or the same as prior to the pandemic, 78% (Figure 13) were much more concerned
and13% said they were less concerned. Only 9% said they had the same level of concern pre-
and during the pandemic.
18Much more concerned
than before Covid-19
9% and the lockdown
13%
Less Concerned
78% About the same level
of concern
Figure 13: Concern about financial situation pre- and during lockdown (%) (N=1857)
To get some idea of what persons with disabilities were doing in terms of employment at the
start of the lockdown on 27 March 2020 they were asked to select an option that best
described their work status. Figure 14 shows that 37% of the respondents indicated that they
were working fulltime or part-time or were self-employed and 35% were unemployed. The
unemployment figure is similar to that of the general population at the time. While 2% were
unable to work for health reasons 9% were permanently unable to work because of their
disability. Only 2% were old age pensioners while 6% were looking after other household
members and 8% were students.
37%
35%
8% 9%
6%
2% 2%
Permanently Pensioner Looking after Student Permanently Unemployed Employed full-
unable to work household unable to work time / part-time /
because of because of self-employed
health disability and casual
Figure 14: Respondents’ work status at lockdown on 27 March 2020 (%) (N=1857)
Respondents were asked if there had been any changes in their employment circumstances
because of the Pandemic and control measures introduced since 27 March 2020. In Figure 15,
194% did not know and 32% did not experience any of the options listed. Just under a third
(29%) had not been in any form of employment since the beginning of the pandemic which
roughly coincides with the share of unemployed indicated in Figure 14 (35%). From the
remaining 35% of respondents, who seemed to be undertaking some form of employment,
the pandemic and regulations resulted in 6% taking unpaid leave, 5% had their working hours
reduced and 11% had the income from their employment reduced. Approximately 13% lost
their jobs. So, while it is difficult for persons with disabilities to get employment at the best
of times changes in employment conditions are similar to those experienced by persons
without disabilities.
Dont know 4%
None of these 32%
I have not been in work at any time since
29%
the start of the pandemic
I was forced to take unpaid leave/holiday
6%
leave
My workin g hours were reduced 5%
The income from my job was reduced 11%
I was made redundant/lost my job 13%
Figure 15: Change in employment circumstances because of the pandemic (%) (N=1857)
To assess whether respondents felt they were struggling financially we used a Likert-scale
type question asking if they agreed with the statement “Due to my financial situation, as a
result of lockdown, I have difficulties paying for my living expenses”. While 76% agreed with
the statement 6% disagreed, 14% neither agreed nor disagreed and 4% did not know. In the
last instance this might be due to the respondent not being in direct control of their finances,
e.g., somebody living in a home or who is being cared for by family. When asked, using a
similar scale, if their financial situation in terms of paying for disability related experiences
had changed, 44% said it had remained the same, 49% stated that it had got worse, while 4%
did not know and 4% said it had remained unchanged. With almost half the respondents
stating that their disability related expenses were negatively affecting them as a direct or
indirect result of the pandemic, this is cause for concern, especially as many are unemployed,
and a similar number’s employment status had adjusted downwards because of the
pandemic.
To gauge respondents outlook regarding their future financial wellbeing, they were asked
how likely or unlikely is it that their personal economic/financial situation could get worse in
20the next few months due to the economic consequences of COVID-19. Just over half (51%)
Felt That It Was Unlikely, While 39% Felt That It Was Likely To Worsen And 10% Did Not
Know/Had No Opinion On The Subject.
21Psychosocial experiences
Beyond economic and financial effects of the pandemic and subsequent mitigation
legislation, the survey explored the social and psychological wellbeing of respondents. Other
studies reported that for the general South African population, as well as in other countries,
the pandemic is having a serious negative impact on people’s psycho-social wellbeing due to
the fear associated with the pandemic and the often lengthy periods of isolation (self or
officially imposed) due to restrictions on movement. At the beginning of the lockdown in
South Africa the army and the police services were deployed to many areas to ensure
adherence to travel restrictions and movement outside of homes and places of residence
during and in between curfew periods. At the time, the media presented serious cases of
abuse by the security services, including the loss of life, and the general anxiety experienced
by South Africans about the unknown future direction of the pandemic. In this section we
look at various psychosocial experiences and the encounters between persons with
disabilities and law enforcement.
Emotional experiences during the pandemic and means of coping
In Figure 16, displaying multiple emotional experiences, it is evident that stress was felt by
almost two-thirds of the respondents at some stage during the pandemic. Over half felt
scared or depressed, while just under a third felt angry at times and only 23% felt happy at
times. Between 41% and 44% reported feeling sad, lonely, frustrated and irritable or bored.
Overall, the responses indicate many negative emotions experienced in response to the
pandemic. These may well have long lasting negative effects as the pandemic continues and
will need to be addressed.
Other 0
None of the above 4%
Happy 23%
Angry 30%
Sad 41%
Lonely 42%
Frustrated or irritable 43%
Bored 44%
Scared 52%
Depressed 54%
Stressed 60%
Figure 16: Emotional experiences of respondents under lockdown (MR) (%) (N=1857)
22Respondents were asked about what measures they undertook to address negative emotions
during the pandemic, noting that often normal forms of recreation and relaxation were
curbed because of various disaster management regulations. Figures 17 and 18 respectively
if and how people addressed the negative emotions. In Figure 17 we see that almost 70% of
the respondents took measures to address negative emotions they experienced. Figure 18
indicates that 29% of the respondents sought professional mental health services to address
negative emotions. Almost 50% undertook activities such as prayer, exercise and relaxation
activities, engaged in reading and other forms of entertainment, and connecting and
communicating with friends and family. At least one-fifth of the sample undertook other
undisclosed activities and a concern here is that this could have included the use of drugs and
alcohol as coping strategies.
Did you address the negative
feelings
31%
69%
No
Yes
Figure 17: Whether respondents addressed any of the negative emotions they experienced
during the pandemic (%) (N=1857)
23Mental health care 29%
Other 21%
Reading & entertainment 18%
Connecting & communicating 16%
Physical activity & relaxation
10%
techniques
Prayer 5%
Figure 18: Measures undertaken by respondents to address negative emotions experienced
during the pandemic (%) (N=1857)
When asked if they felt their current situation would worsen (Figure 19) almost 50% felt this
was unlikely while 40% thought that this was likely. Around 11% were unsure what the future
would hold for them.
49%
40%
11%
Unlikely Likely Don’t know
Figure 19: Likelihood of personal social situation worsening (%) (N=1857)
Experiences with law enforcement
Because of the initial media reporting of mistreatment and abuse by the security forces in
certain townships in South Africa respondents were asked several questions about their
encounters with the security services. This includes encounters at roadblocks, in the street
24and outside their residences (Figure 20). At least 10% of the respondents reported not leaving
their houses. Over half said that they had not been stopped and questioned why they were
outside their house and where they were going, while 39% said they had had an interaction
with the security forces and had not been questioned about why they were not inside their
dwellings.
10%
Yes
39%
No
51%
Not applicable (as I dont
go out of the house)
Figure 20: Whether respondents were questioned by law enforcement agents about why
they were outside of their homes (%) (N=1857)
To determine if any of the respondents had experienced any direct harassment from law
enforcement officials, they were asked to select from a list of possible experiences. The
results of this multiple response question are displayed in Figure 21 and includes those who
reported not leaving their homes. This is a different question to that represented in Figure
20. The former asks about being questioned when outside their homes while Figure 21 looks
at harassment which could occur inside or outside of the home. Furthermore, it also includes
harassment by non-law enforcement. In both questions N=1857. In Figure 21 we see that 70%
reported that they had not been harassed physically or non-physically by anybody and 2%
preferred not to disclose their experiences. What we do see are some reports of various types
of physical and non-physical harassment from different sources or individuals. These
experiences range between 18% and 24%. As this is a multiple response question some
respondents will have experienced more than one type of harassment.
2570%
24% 23% 22% 22%
19% 18% 18%
2%
Figure 21: Direct harassment from law enforcement agents and others (MR) (%) (N=1857)
Respondents were asked if the security services had offered them any support during the
pandemic. Figure 22 indicates that at least 36%, slightly more than one-third of the
respondents received support from the security services.
26Have the police or army
offered you any support
36%
64%
Yes No
Figure 22: Was support offered by law enforcement agents during the pandemic (%)
(N=1857)
As Figure 23 illustrates this support came in multiple forms. Almost half (48%) said that the
security forces had assisted them with complying with safety and health regulations related
to COVID-19. One Fifth (19%) indicated that the support had to do with personal protection
and safety and 19% said that they had received general support, which was reported as help
with affidavits and the certification of documents. Security services also helped with access
to essential goods (10%) and to acquiring food parcels (4%).
27Compliance/enforce
48%
regulations
Protection (safety,security) 19%
General support 19%
Access essentials 10%
Food parcel distribution 4%
Figure 23: Types of support provided by law enforcement agents (% of N = 668)
Worst and best thing about lockdown
Continuing the theme of psychosocial experiences, respondents were asked to list the worst
and best single thing or experience of lockdown. Figure 24 illustrates that economic
conditions (43%) and the restrictions imposed on movement and accessing facilities, goods
and services (20%) were most often reported, while accessing medical care was also seen as
a challenge, by 12% of respondents.
Economic conditions 43%
Restrictions 20%
Other 14%
Accessing medical care 12%
Nothing/NA/DKN 6%
Psychological impact 6%
Figure 24: Worst single thing about lockdown (%) (N=1857)
28When considering the best single aspect during lockdown (Figure 25), 57% said there was
nothing that was good, while almost one-fifth (19%) rated staying at home / family time
together as the best single experience. Learning new things (7%) and working from home (4%)
were also seen as good outcomes of the pandemic.
No (Nothing) 57%
Family time/staying at home 19%
Other 13%
Learning new things/reading 7%
Learning/working from home 4%
Figure 25: Best single aspect of lockdown (%) (N=1857)
29Service challenges
Despite the South African government’s attempts to control the spread of COVID-19, several
challenges have been highlighted in the preceding sections. Mitigation was probably not the
initial key concern as the immediate focus in March 2020 was on controlling the spread of the
virus. The initial advisory committee on COVID-19 included only health and medical
professionals; social scientists were included in the advisory committee months later when
evidence showed that control strategies and regulations were having a negative impact on
the population at large. It has been noted above and reported elsewhere that the mitigation
measures provided were not disability inclusive.
Despite the increase in social grants and the introduction of the rather trivial SRD, many
persons with disability in this study reported a negative impact on their income. While at least
one-third were unemployed, many of those employed at the time of the lockdown lost jobs
or had salary cuts during the period up to and including the survey.
To explore the circumstances of persons with disabilities during COVID-19 we wanted to elicit
their experience of events in COVID-19 times, that were unique to the pandemic situation.
Figure 26 illustrates that 12% did not have any of the listed challenges, while 28% had
undisclosed challenges. Clearly a great concern is the experience of hunger and lack of income
to purchase food during the pandemic. During the pandemic 39% of respondents and
someone else in their household had gone to bed hungry, while 40% acknowledged that they
had run out of money to buy food at some stage during the pandemic. More alarmingly,
during the time of the survey (July and August 2021), 29% reported that either they or
somebody else in their household had gone to bed hungry during the previous seven days.
This illustrates that they were not benefitting sufficiently from relief measures 16 months
after lockdown. Just over one third (36%) of respondents reported running out of soap and
sanitiser, while 31% reported barriers to accessing transport when they needed it. Although
the country has had power cuts and water shortages for several years, 42% and 34%
respectively reported that they experienced an increase in the lack of access to electricity and
water during the pandemic.
300 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
You have gone to bed feeling hungry 39%
Someone else in your household has gone to bed hungry 39%
Ran out of money to buy food 40%
During the last 7 days you or somebody else in your
household went to bed hungry 29%
You have run out of soap or hand sanitizer 36%
You have had problems with electricity at home 42%
You have had problems getting water 34%
You have been unable to get public/private transport
when you needed it 31%
Have had another problem not listed here 28%
Had none of the above problems 12%
Figure 26: Events experienced during lockdown not normally experienced prior to the
pandemic (MR) (%) (N=1857)
In order to gauge the awareness about the existence of special disability-inclusive
interventions introduced by the state during the pandemic, we asked participants whether
they were aware of these and what these were. Figure 27 shows that almost half (49%) of the
respondents were unaware of any special forms of assistance, while 38% said they were
aware of such interventions.
49%
38%
13%
Yes No Dont know
Figure 27: Awareness of government special forms of assistance (%) (N=1857)
In the follow-up question to the those who said they were aware (“Yes” in Figure 27), the
following was noted:
31• Increase in social grants and SRD but a limited period.
• Food parcel delivery – at the community centres and shopping centres.
• ICASA mandated that South African Sign Language be available when COVID-19
information is televised.
• I was aware of special forms of special assistant services – but these were interrupted.
• They said everything in place there but nothing of sort.
• I had [own] measures were in place.
These responses suggest that with the exception of the ICASA mandate most interventions
were inadequate or not specifically directed at persons with disabilities or did not enable
them to access the interventions. This is more strongly emphasised by statements from those
who had responded “No” or “Don’t know” to the question.
• In the beginning there were grants and food parcels available but it didn't appear
organised or efficient or enough.
• The conditions we confronted with during lockdown was really very bad.
• The increment on Disability grant but later taken away, why?
• Special measures put in place for people with disabilities were conspicuous in their
absence.
• No captions on TV.
Respondents were asked where they accessed disability-related or necessary services. Figure
28 indicates that over one third (37%) accessed these services from state facilities and 25%
accessed these from OPDs and other non-government organisations. Family and friends were
often service providers or conduits to getting necessary services during the pandemic; 20%
reported the importance of family or friends in accessing services. Less than one tenth (8%)
obtained services from private facilities or service providers and 11% were not able to access
the services they required.
32You can also read
